Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 43531 - 43540 of 58976 for SMALL CLAIMS.

State v. Diane R.
, and September of 1991.[2] Diane R. claims that the trial court erred in not appointing a lawyer for her
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13597 - 2005-03-31

Dennis Van Straten v. David H. Schwarz
proceedings. He claims that it would show that around April 30, 1995, he appeared before Judge Futch where
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12397 - 2005-03-31

Wood County Department of Human Services v. Denise F. R.
of protection or services and placing that child in a foster home. Id. at 411. M.G. claimed that the circuit
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4816 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] FICE OF THE CLERK
on his sentence modification claim, we should review the matter de novo. However, because we conclude
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1020235 - 2025-10-08

[PDF] CA Blank Order
that there is no arguably meritorious basis to claim that the court erroneously exercised its discretion in denying
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=916439 - 2025-02-19

State v. Tecia D.B.
of Milwaukee Child Welfare. Although trial evidence supported Tecia’s claim that she had experienced
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6837 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] FICE OF THE CLERK
on his sentence modification claim, we should review the matter de novo. However, because we conclude
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1020235 - 2025-10-08

[PDF] Nancy D. McNamara v. Edward J. McNamara
was entitled to receive $965.47 from Nancy’s total monthly benefit of $2,642.23. Nancy appeals, claiming
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=16232 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] Review-Memo
), such that an order is final for purposes of appeal if all that remains to be litigated is a claim for attorney's
/sc/orasyn/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=845221 - 2024-08-29

[PDF] Louise Sterlinske v. School District of Bruce
, Mandamus § 40 at 365-66 (1970)). The district claims that Sterlinske has no clear legal right to renewal
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11413 - 2017-09-19